Over the past several weeks, signs have begun to appear in a number of
suburban yards. They do not claim affiliation with any political
party, but urge passers by to "Vote for candidates who will support
our public schools." There is no statement of why this is a good idea.
The assertion that we must not only preserve the public school system,
but also actively support it has, like mush-mouthed assertions about
the need to protect our children, become a bromide. The desirability
of a government run public school system is taken to be so patently
obvious that it needs no defense.

It is not, however, obvious that government schools are a good idea.
Public schools may be able to claim several compensations for the tax
dollars they consume, but they are also accountable for a number of
ills. The question advocates of a government school system fail to
answer is whether those benefits may be achieved without the illsby a
private school system.

The system I am offering as a basis of comparison is a voucher model
in which the government maintains a laissez-faire attitude to the
educational marketplace. Tax dollars would still be used to provide
funding for schools in the form of portable tuition credits, but there
would be no more governmental imposition of curricular standards, nor
would there be any schools directly run by the federal, state, or
local government. The purpose of this essay is not to outline in
detail the working of such a program, but to offer a comparison
between government controlled and parochial education. Therefore, I
will avoid any wonkish outline of how such a program would look.

Public schools were originally established because it was supposed
that an illiterate populace was not a viable foundation for a
democratic republic. The aim of public education, then, was not to
allow citizens to gain skills that are beneficial in the job market
(although reading and writing are certainly useful in a search for
employment), but to create a citizenry capable of self-government. As
the nation progressed, the industrial revolution and the information
age made it virtually impossible to succeed without education.
Schools, therefore, changed in order to meet new educational demands.
The one-room schoolhouse was gradually replaced by the multi-tiered
and standardized educational system. At the same time, "progressive"
educational theories espoused by John Dewey and his ilk began to re-
shape the classroom itself. The result of these changes is the modern
public school establishment.

The question is: "Is this a good idea?" In other words, are the
benefits to students and parents of this system outstripped by its
drawbacks? They are.

Victims of the public school system are broadly separated into two
groups: those who are not educated by the public schools and find
themselves with no viable options, and those who are the unwilling
targets of social and political engineering by legions of do-gooder
educational "experts".

The first group is as easy to ignore as the proverbial elephant in the
living room. It is nearly universal knowledge that inner-city
students, along with those in impoverished rural areas are chronically
under educated. Anecdotal and statistical evidence show that these
students are lacking in basic reading and mathematical skills. As if
this were not sufficient reason to condemn the schools that serve
these communities, many of them offer an educational environment in
which a student is taking a tremendous physical risk simply by walking
in the door. Parents and students in this system frequently have no
way out: they can not afford private schools, and the limited number
of scholarships offered are at least partially based on academic
merit. A student who has never received a proper education has little
or no chance to open that door. Home schooling is not an option for
them because it takes considerable financial resources both in terms
of required materials and time away from work. Given the prevalence of
single parent homes in impoverished areas, it is unreasonable, if not
simply stupid, to propose home schooling as an option. The parent is
thus left with one option: send his child to a school that does not
teach and may endanger the child's well being. An under-educated
student, unless he possesses a great deal of athletic skill, has
little chance of going to college and therefore little chance of
escaping poverty.

Consider as an extreme example the Kansas City, Missouri school
district, which lost its State accreditation for x years. These
students have virtually no chance of obtaining a higher education.
They are compelled by a maleficent combination of poverty and law to
continue attending schools that can guarantee only one thing: a
continuation of the cycle of poverty. This is more than a tragic
situation; it is an abomination in a nation predicated on the idea
that government is instituted to serve, rather than condemn its
citizens.

Those students who are lucky enough to live in better school districts
receive a better education, at least in the sense that they are more
able to read, write, and do math. They are, however, subjected to
indoctrination by an educational establishment that has a definite
agenda. Public schools, whether by intention or default, tend to
produce students who are steeped in a left-liberal worldview. Teachers
are overwhelmingly democrats and textbooks tend to present a left-
liberal and communitarian view of history and politics. Whether or not
this worldview is correct is not the subject of discussion here.
Rather, I am questioning whether it is acceptable to extort money from
taxpayers who may or may not support this ideology to support this
system, and whether it is morally acceptable to compel (de facto if
not de jure) parents to educate their children in it.

A Christian parent may object to his daughter being taught methods of
birth control in a classroom that his taxes help pay for, while
another parent may view abstinence only education as the surest way to
ensure an early pregnancy. Still another parent may object to having
his children indoctrinated in the lore of the drug war by DARE
programs. These parents have two options: to send their children to
public schools and try to teach their own values at home while
continuing to support the system to which they are morally opposed by
paying taxes, or to send their children to a private or home school
more in line with their values while continuing to support a system
they oppose by paying taxes. The tiger, or the bigger tiger?

Finally, there is the issue of students who do not do well in
traditional classroom settings. These students may be learning
disabled, exceptionally bright, hyperactive, or a combination of any
of these. In a school system that by necessity focuses on educating
the average student, these children are an afterthought. Although
there are schools and classes tailored to the learning disabled as
well as the exceptionally bright, they tend to be appendages of a
larger system. For those students who do not fit easily into either
category, there is the classroom presided over by a teacher who is
often already overburdened and has no time to deal with "disruptive"
students. Thus, a hyperactive or extraordinarily independent child may
find himself subject to chemical constraints-one of the thousands of
children dosed with Ritalin or some other "calming" drug.

So, we are left with the question, "Why should we support public
schools?" Clearly, the current system is not working. Nor does there
seem to be any way to reform the system in time to save those already
victimized by it. A market solution would not be perfect. Utopia,
after all, is a myth. It would however, create choices and options for
those who have none. So, why vote for candidates who support our
public schools? Good question.